Discrepancy in Church Practice

[donfriesen1]

Part 2/2
Don answers votivesoul post 119, Discrepancy in Church Practice.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

"Dom" as you have taken liberties to call him, has earned his place and has the respect of his fellow posters (few though they now may be). I'll not point out that you've taken liberties with calling me Don. No offense taken.

Don has not earned his place and does not have the respect of his fellow posters (few though they now may be).

Get it? Point clearly made.

You want everyone to receive you as an Apostolic? Yes. Receive me as I describe myself to be. But do not necessarily receive my thoughts. And yet you continually teach contrary to the most fundamental Apostolic hermeneutic available to you. Toe the party line whether or not it disagrees with the Bible? Your point is clearly made. When asked if you are a current member of an Apostolic Church, you play coy. You've created this ridiculous Pray tell, how does providing an example for clarity portray something as ridiculous? It doesn't. Does your use of such a word then demonstrate a bias against the one saying it? Perhaps. hypothetical about some dude you've named BS (how appropriate, btw!!!) holding to YOUR view of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, even though you admitted that as far as you know, you're the only person in the whole world who believes the IV, as you call it This is indeed true, with my having stated so other times. I have not denied this. , thereby showing you're the BS of your own hypothetical. You've asked me to be honest, votivesoul. Plz be honest with me. Was the closing of the 1Co11 thread motivated by the personal revulsion your Apostolic hermeneutics felt? Yet when challenged to just admit it, you temper tantrum around the question. I'd deny any temper tantrum. Surely there are other phrases which would have been more apt to use. But what's the big deal about whether or not it is so? Why is it worth highlighting here? My arguments/views wouldn't be affected by this one way or another. It is moot for you to mention it.

If you're as Apostolic as you say, how about "Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay"? My yea and nay are just that.

So, let's not dance anymore to your tune. Answer these questions:

1.) How long have you been in the Apostolic (i.e. Oneness Pentecostal) Faith?
2.) When were you baptized in the name of Jesus?
3.) When did you receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, speaking with other tongues?
4.) Are you currently attending an Apostolic (i.e. Oneness Pentecostal) Faith Church?
5.) Are you the BS of your own hypothetical in this thread?
6.) Are you the one who was denied a "word serving position" at your local congregation for holding the IV view?

Come clean, or get lost.

Ouch! get lost sets the stage for my expulsion.

No one needs to dance to my tune. The tune I play can be silenced easily, by showing the error of the reasoning I've used to present it or showing my scriptural interpretations with fault. Dom has adequately presented much evidence to a view I agree with. But Dom's doing this has not destroyed the foundations I've shown for my views. Dom misses the mark he should target. (And so also in my other threads.)

Labels mean little. Whether I am called an Apostolic or a Christian, it changes nothing of the thoughts I present. I'm surprised you would make demands of any one particular member to provide such proofs.

As someone in AFF pointed out, about using pseudonyms in AFF and not real names, anyone can make any claims in AFF they want and no one would be the wiser. Fake 'real-names' would not be really exposed until the givers of them reveal themselves. So also with any titles of believers, or responses in answers to the questions you've asked of me. AFF operates on trust.

My real name is Don Friesen. I'm known here in AFF, and a Youtube replier, as donfriesen1. User10859 in Stack Exchange.

I'll not answer your questions unless all members are required to do so to be a poster/member. Why do I get special treatment?

I'm an Apostolic. Apostolics are so because of Jn3 and Ac2. Those who comply with its requirements are Apostolic. I am Apostolic. It matters little if some do not call me one. Nothing changes. But even that much is not needed to be known for Bible discussion forum membership.

But plz, what motivates the asking of such questions? Perhaps your explanation for asking them will provide a reason suitable to convince me to answer them. Come clean and answer. Are all members required to answer these or just certain ones?

Your highlighting of the initials of B Smith is humorous. I assure you before the Lord Jesus that the choosing of the name had nothing to do with the initials. It is entirely unintentional. B Smith is a fictitious saint. But what of the truth of the arguments I've made changes if B Smith and I are the same one. Nothing changes and it is sensless to ask. Those reaching for gossip material by asking gain what in what is a Bible discussion forum. Give me a break from nonsense, plz. Focus on the topic at hand, Ro14.

But now plz, be specific. You have said in a general way, that I continually teach contrary to the most fundamental Apostolic hermeneutic available to you. Instead of leaving it like this, a general statement, provide some detail, some specifics. You have an opinion of me, making a value judgment of me based on it, and I'm left dangling by the noose, not allowed to have defended myself against this judgment. The courts do not convene for charges of 'they're a criminal'. Specifics like 'on Feb3 they were found in a residence holding a bag with items the owner of the residence paid for, going out a window and arrested'. If you can't provide the specifics then withdraw the statement. I've not made statements here in AFF without providing lines of reasoning and scriptural references. Have I. Have I? Detail the accusations so I can provide a defence. That is the American way the mostly-Christian founders used to build the USA.

As I've stated to others, show the error of the reasoning I've used in the threads I've started. Show them wrong. Show the interpretation of scripture I've used, to be a bad interpretation. If not able to, then accept them in the same way all truth should be accepted by all Men. If you show them wrong then you'll be able to say with an honest-to-yourself face, that I continually teach contrary to the most fundamental Apostolic hermeneutic available. I'm fully keenly aware they do not agree with standard Apostolic interpretation. But are my thoughts seen wrong compared to scripture or compared to a long-held interpretation of scripture? I think those of AFF see me as wrong only as compared to long-held interpretation of scripture. Those who think them wrong do not compare them to scripture.

And the holes in their views I point out in my views, which holes my critics do not plug. Thus, continued retention of bad interpretation is compounded by rejection of truth exposing the error of views. And this from those whose mantra is 'we've got the truth'. Apostolics are just as human as Trinitarians in ways just described.

I'm not a novice and fully realise before I post, that I'm up against years of entrenched traditional Apostolic Biblical interpretation, which then sees me with heretical ideas. Even so, I post.

Trinitarians have a view caused by misinterpretation, seen when all the scriptural facts are considered without bias. But it is scriptural interpretation nonetheless. It may be so with long held Apostolic interpretation.

And yet, I here in AFF put up with the abuse which people who wish to see me leave, heap on me. Why should I stay? Why should I put up with this from those who are spiritual kin by the standards of the New Birth. But I do. I have something of truth to share. I share it and suffer the abuse which comes with it.

All could have been cut short in the first posts with the exposing of the error of reason I used or showing how the Bible I used was misinterpreted. Novice readers wait for a reply to be sent by mature AFF pioneers. And wait. And wait. Instead, abuse of my character. This characterization is not Bible discussion. It is the malignment of a soul, using it to discredit a scripturally-derived view. Those who defend those who do so end up being seen in the same club.

I came to post on AFF, thinking that people I know by reading their posts, have great insight and knowledge of scripture. If any of them know the errors of my reasoning as wrong, they have failed to show it. I've even provided a path for them to follow, to use to prove me wrong. And so I stand as one who has been convinced by scripture to stand firm. The path I used to present my views in these threads has not been shown wrong.

Would Jesus have been accepted in AFF had AFF existed in 30ad? He had so many new ideas they killed him for it.

You insinuate that my calling Dom, short for Dominic, as being disrespectful. James meant no disrespect calling Peter, Simon. Respect does not suddenly appear when a certain name is used. It does not disappear when a certain name is used. James had great respect for Simon, and meant no disrespect when calling him Simon, even though Simon had been renamed by Jesus as Peter. Respect is given or not given, usually in response to what is earned. And you have said nothing of the disrespect Dom has shown me, only of mine to him. Does this show your favouritism/partiality? Oh, right. I forgot. He is a founding member with rights to disrespect other lesser members. Silly of me to forget.

Whether or not Dom is a founding member of AFF should not have any bearing on any Bible discussion made, nor of your relations with me. I hope that the favoritism you would naturally have, to a long-time founding friend with credit, would not cloud judgment of any new member who has new ideas. Instead, I would hope you would show them wrong if they are wrong. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Blanket statements like Dom has made, saying 'you're wrong', are only opinions and not lines of reason. They don't contribute to healthy discussion of Bible topics or to acceptance of truth long hidden from eyes.